Advocacy & Safety - Interesting series on difficulties with Mass Transportation in San Franciso Bay area

Mass transit and bicycle use are complementary to each other in many ways. But there are challenges with getting people to use and stay using both.

The San Jose Mercury news is running a series about the issues in the bay area. some things brought up include, decreasing rider ship due to amount of time commutes take and the cost of commuting (more than buy auto in many cases) the challenges in building new capability in times of declining ridership and deficits.

IMHO, there will be not be significant increase in bike ridership, no matter what infrstructure is in place ,what style of cycling you use/advocate, what health benefitst there are and what environmental benefits there are until there is a clear cost advantage to using bikes that tilts ridership to a level of commonplace that will then further act as a tipping point.

http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-transportation

Squirt

I saw the article in the Sunday Merc. One thing that frustrates me is that we heavily subsidize private vehicle use in this country, and then we wonder why other modes of transportation have such a hard time. As an example, my employer provides 'free parking', the local grocery stores and other retailers also provide 'free parking', and even on the street in front of my house, there is 'free parking'. Beyond that, local (San Jose) codes require that my house have a two car garage, so I am required to pay for parking for a car myself. It is not free, the roads need to be built and maintained, parking lots take up space that could be much more productively employed etc. Who pays for it? - We all do, through higher taxes, higher retail prices, lower wages. Since I don't own a car, I am being forced to subsidize the use of private automobiles in my society. After we provide all of these subsidies for private motor vehicle use, we wonder why people tend to prefer this form of transport.

Squirt

I saw the article in the Sunday Merc. One thing that frustrates me is that we heavily subsidize private vehicle use in this country, and then we wonder why other modes of transportation have such a hard time. As an example, my employer provides 'free parking', the local grocery stores and other retailers also provide 'free parking', and even on the street in front of my house, there is 'free parking'. Beyond that, local (San Jose) codes require that my house have a two car garage, so I am required to pay for parking for a car myself. It is not free, the roads need to be built and maintained, parking lots take up space that could be much more productively employed etc. Who pays for it? - We all do, through higher taxes, higher retail prices, lower wages. Since I don't own a car, I am being forced to subsidize the use of private automobiles in my society. After we provide all of these subsidies for private motor vehicle use, we wonder why people tend to prefer this form of transport.

Free parking? Wow....last time i looked, it costs alot for your employer, your grocery store, and other retailers to build and maintain, and plow these lots in the winter. The fact that they allow you to park there 'for free' means only that they hope the foregone revenue from parking meters (were they to install them) will be more the compensated by the additional customers, and/or the higher quality of employee they attract. You can always choose to go downtown and fight for a parking space and shove money in the meter if thats what gets your jollies.

2nd...as far as the two car garage is concerned, the solution is very simple: remove the power local zoning boards have to require such monstrosities. Its a classic case of dogooders getting kicked in the butt by their own naivete. WE delegate power to local hacks to tell us how, what, when, where, even WHY to build, and then we stand agape when this power is abused to by local real estate interests. I'll ask ya a question: name ONE PERSON on your local zoning board. Right...thought so. Not worth a penny of your time. Worth alot of money to local developers, though.

3rd building roads isn't a subsidy to 'cars.' It is a subsidy to any user to the roads, and this includes those monstrosities known as buses and light rail. Buses go where they want, when they want, and they end up stuck in the same traffic jams as the cars do. Many communities find it cheaper to provide people with vouchers for cabs, especially if these vouchers can be used by any motorist, not just some local unionized/medallionized cab monopoly.


roughstuff

.....

IMHO, there will be not be significant increase in bike ridership, no matter what infrstructure is in place ,what style of cycling you use/advocate, what health benefitst there are and what environmental benefits there are until there is a clear cost advantage to using bikes that tilts ridership to a level of commonplace that will then further act as a tipping point.

http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-transportation

Hmmm...but isn;t there already a pretty substantial cost advantage to biking and not having a car? I would think its on the order to thousands of dollars in savings on insurance, gas, maintenance, and for finance afficianados, the opportunity cost of the capital tied up the vehicle.

roughstuff

Hmmm...but isn;t there already a pretty substantial cost advantage to biking and not having a car? I would think its on the order to thousands of dollars in savings on insurance, gas, maintenance, and for finance afficianados, the opportunity cost of the capital tied up the vehicle.

roughstuff

Not for non-bike fans....I mean what it will take to get the "average driver" out of their car at least some of the time. I don't mean going carless...I mean what it will take for current drivers to simply start using bikes more for errands, for commuting or part of multi modal commute.

I started to see more people on bikes when gas was approaching $5 a gal..... as soon as it went down you saw fewer people on bikes.

Not for non-bike fans....I mean what it will take to get the "average driver" out of their car at least some of the time. I don't mean going carless...I mean what it will take for current drivers to simply start using bikes more for errands, for commuting or part of multi modal commute.

I started to see more people on bikes when gas was approaching $5 a gal..... as soon as it went down you saw fewer people on bikes.

Ahh...I see. About all 'partial use of your autombile' saves is the incremental gas expenditures. The rest are pretty much fixed with respect to mileage.

The other challenge is both physical and social. I hear people talking about long walkers as crazy. I walk to and from 'work' about 2 miles every day. Even in this bracing winter, it has kept me fit and healthy.

It doesn't help that a decline in civic pride means many sidewalks remain unshoveled and dangerous in the winter. I have been tempted to go get the best lawyer in the county and fall down on the ice in front of the richest politicians' house I can find.

roughstuff

I mean what it will take to get the "average driver" out of their car at least some of the time.

I think that a major help would be to increase the marginal cost of driving. As I mentioned in my earlier post - we have a lot of subsidized parking everywhere - if we were to eliminate that, so that whenever you drove somewhere, you would at least have to pay for parking, I think that more people would walk or cycle for short trips.

I'd also like to see roads, insurance and other driving related costs more directly tied to a gas tax, so that the costs of driving are more closely related to the activity of driving itself. With our current system of roads being paid for largely out of general revenue, cars being purchased and insurance costs not related to miles driven, there is little incentive to drive less. If you feel that you need a car at all, it is not that much more penalty to drive it everywhere.

...... As I mentioned in my earlier post - we have a lot of subsidized parking everywhere - if we were to eliminate that, so that whenever you drove somewhere, you would at least have to pay for parking, ......

We could adopt the Singapore model, where you cannot enter the city in a car unless you already have a parking space that you have paid for (thru the nose, by the way! land is precioussssss). Many singaporeans who live in the city and do not drive cars sell their space to those who do....a double incentive to reduce car use.

Now for some humor. In my small apartment complex we have a number of loonies and mentally challenged adults. :)There is a parking space in front of each of the 14 efficiency apartments, for the tenant. The guy in #9 doesn't have a car, but you should see how quickly he will run out (even into the recent bitter cold!) if someone parks in his space!
Gotta love it.

roughstuff

Mass transit and bicycle use are complementary to each other in many ways. But there are challenges with getting people to use and stay using both.

The San Jose Mercury news is running a series about the issues in the bay area. some things brought up include, decreasing rider ship due to amount of time commutes take and the cost of commuting (more than buy auto in many cases) the challenges in building new capability in times of declining ridership and deficits.

IMHO, there will be not be significant increase in bike ridership, no matter what infrstructure is in place ,what style of cycling you use/advocate, what health benefitst there are and what environmental benefits there are until there is a clear cost advantage to using bikes that tilts ridership to a level of commonplace that will then further act as a tipping point.

http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-transportation

In the case of transit use, it's easy to multi-task while on a transit vehicle (bus, streetcar, subway, LRT, ICST, HRT) , in more and more places it's illegal to do so while driving. For those who are addicted to their crackberry and need to be up to date on their email when they arrive at the office, then it's easier to do so when someone else is driving. Even if the trip takes 5 times the amount of time, there is less wasted time. Cycling is inherently a multi-tasking activilty, you get where your going and you get exercise at the same time. If it takes you 10 minutes to drive, and 30 minutes on a bicycle, but you spend an hour at the gym every other day, then your actually ahead of the game by using the bicycle.

The problem with the automobile is that users are not rational about the cost. When figuring the cost of driving to work, most people only consider gas and parking. Even when a couple might only have one car otherwise, they will not include all the costs of a second car (car payments, insurance, maintenance, gas and parking). Of course there are the increased costs associated with more motor vehicles on the road, mostly borne by society in general. It costs about $8,000 a year to keep a small late model car on the road in the US, although this is public knowledge, people are shocked to hear that. Here in Canada it's about $11,000.

Squirt

I saw the article in the Sunday Merc. One thing that frustrates me is that we heavily subsidize private vehicle use in this country, and then we wonder why other modes of transportation have such a hard time. As an example, my employer provides 'free parking', the local grocery stores and other retailers also provide 'free parking', and even on the street in front of my house, there is 'free parking'. Beyond that, local (San Jose) codes require that my house have a two car garage, so I am required to pay for parking for a car myself. It is not free, the roads need to be built and maintained, parking lots take up space that could be much more productively employed etc. Who pays for it? - We all do, through higher taxes, higher retail prices, lower wages. Since I don't own a car, I am being forced to subsidize the use of private automobiles in my society. After we provide all of these subsidies for private motor vehicle use, we wonder why people tend to prefer this form of transport.

There are two households in my house, one upstairs and one downstairs, neither drives at the moment, the single car garage is neatly (okay not so neatly at the moment), divided in half, and used for storage. With your 2 car garage, you could use 1/2 for storage and rent the other half to someone who needs an extra parking space. Around here there are a some people who have a summer car and a winter car, because their summer car is fancy or rare (read expensive), they have an old beater they drive in the winter, would love to have indoor storage for the winter without "wasting" their own garage space. If you don't want to do that, you can put in some nice shelving a work bench, add a bike repair stand and use the garage as a bike work shop.

The problem with the automobile is that users are not rational about the cost. When figuring the cost of driving to work, most people only consider gas and parking. ......

Correct....which is silly! After all, auto insurance bills come due monthly, much as rent and utilities, and people don't ignore the latter. Putting a positive spin on it, ditching a car can have immediate impact on your cash flow. You just need to make sure you can make do for those situations where a car would ordinarily be needed. I car pool with a buddy to go grocery shopping, for example.

roughstuff

The honorable Mr. Blumenauer say it succinctly: "How many people, right now, are stuck in traffic going to the gym to ride a stationary bike?"

I think that a major help would be to increase the marginal cost of driving. As I mentioned in my earlier post - we have a lot of subsidized parking everywhere - if we were to eliminate that, so that whenever you drove somewhere, you would at least have to pay for parking, I think that more people would walk or cycle for short trips.


How much will we charge for bicycle parking at the store, and at work, or will that be subsidized since cyclists are a special interest group?

How much will we charge for bicycle parking at the store, and at work, or will that be subsidized since cyclists are a special interest group?

I think that as a cyclist, I should pay for parking at a rate which is comparable to the cost of providing that parking. In a similar way, a motorist should pay approximately the cost of providing his parking space. If we consider that the major cost of the parking would be related to the real-estate that the space takes up, an automobile space is typically about 8' x 20', whereas a bicycle space is about 3' x 6' - which would imply that automobile parking should cost ~ 10X the cost of bike parking. I'm not asking for anything special, I am just making the observation that we, as a society, subsidize the costs of automobiles, often in ways that we don't even think about. These subsidies hide the true cost of driving, and as a result, cause more people to use automobiles than they would use if they were not shielded from the full cost of their choices.

I'd also like to see roads, insurance and other driving related costs more directly tied to a gas tax, so that the costs of driving are more closely related to the activity of driving itself. With our current system of roads being paid for largely out of general revenue, cars being purchased and insurance costs not related to miles driven, there is little incentive to drive less. If you feel that you need a car at all, it is not that much more penalty to drive it everywhere.

I would agree with most of that, but not with insurance. Insurance provides one of the few meaningful financial penalties for incompetent driving.

There's a reason my auto insurance rates are 1/10 of what one of my neighbors pays.

Unless we as a society start supporting meaningful traffic enforcement, with serious penalties, I'd like to keep insurance individually priced.

Now, insurance by the mile is being tested in some U.S. markets, but many drivers don't like the idea of their insurance company installing GPS tracking in their cars. And Americans are inventive enough that anything less than continuous GPS tracking will be hacked by enough drivers that it becomes financially unreliable for the insurance company. (I remember when my insurance company used to send me a form asking for my odometer reading annually -- how quaint, voluntarily submitting a mechanical odometer reading....)

I think that as a cyclist, I should pay for parking at a rate which is comparable to the cost of providing that parking. .....

Well alot of parking is provided, as i described earlier, based on the 'expected revenue per vehicle.' Thats why shopping centers and WalMarts etc provide parking for 'free'....they hope to recoup the cost by selling you goods and services. Space in downtown areas is so cramped, overpriced, and in many cases unattractive, so such a revenue model does not work and communities resort to the sock-it-to-the-user model.

roughstuff

....an automobile space is typically about 8' x 20', whereas a bicycle space is about 3' x 6' - which would imply that automobile parking should cost ~ 10X the cost of bike parking.........


And buses, which take up the space of six cars and 'park' every other block, should pay six times as much for the urban space gobbled up by their stops? Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.......

roughstuff

While I am still firm in my theory that it will take economic pressure to move people out of cars and into bikes at a partial level (and with increasing competition for oil (think India and China domestic car markets) and increasing push to reduce anything that contributes to global warming, the primary place that pressure will come in will be gasoline prices) you can also look at rewards to cyclists and disencentives to to drivers.

some ideas:

Companies charge their employees a fee for parking, but reward people who walk, ride, or use mass transit. People need to remember that by no means do all companies offer their employees parking.

Cities could allow businesses to open, without minimum required parking spaces that are often required, as long as they can show they offer bicycle parking and an incentive to customers who use the parking....

(..) the single car garage is neatly (okay not so neatly at the moment), divided in half, and used for storage. With your 2 car garage, you could use 1/2 for storage and rent the other half to someone who needs an extra parking space. (...) If you don't want to do that, you can put in some nice shelving a work bench, add a bike repair stand and use the garage as a bike work shop.

Within a 2km radius of my place, there are about a half dozen houses whose attached garages have been renovated into living space, either as part of the rest of the house or as a suite with a separate entrance. It's a big regulatory hassle to create a secondary rental suite in Calgary (unless you do it illegally ;) ) but it can be worthwhile.

Correct....which is silly! After all, auto insurance bills come due monthly, much as rent and utilities, and people don't ignore the latter. Putting a positive spin on it, ditching a car can have immediate impact on your cash flow. You just need to make sure you can make do for those situations where a car would ordinarily be needed. I car pool with a buddy to go grocery shopping, for example.

roughstuff

With the right pannier bags, and/or trailer one doesn't even need to car pool (depending on the distance) to go grocery shopping. Between my pannier bags and trailer (Yakima Big Tow) I can carry enough grocery's to last me a week or better. Of course I'm lucky enough to live within about a block or so from the grocery store that I go to all the time, which I know helps. I can (and do) walk to the store carrying my canvas bags.

This year I'm working at Parkmoor and Meridian in San Jose. Next year we might be at the Willow Glen Post Office. Here's your challenge. Get me from around Thornton Ave in Newark or Fremont to the Willow Glen Post Office by 6:30 AM on public transportation. No options allowed that have me bumped and late to work because I'm using a bike.

While I am still firm in my theory that it will take economic pressure to move people out of cars and into bikes at a partial level (and with increasing competition for oil (think India and China domestic car markets) and increasing push to reduce anything that contributes to global warming, the primary place that pressure will come in will be gasoline prices) you can also look at rewards to cyclists and disencentives to to drivers.

some ideas:

Companies charge their employees a fee for parking, but reward people who walk, ride, or use mass transit. People need to remember that by no means do all companies offer their employees parking.

Cities could allow businesses to open, without minimum required parking spaces that are often required, as long as they can show they offer bicycle parking and an incentive to customers who use the parking....

It's going to be very difficult to suddenly charge for parking that has been free, especially in businesses that have trade unions, so I don't see much happening there, because every employee who drives will immediately file a grievance, and they should. Probably be easier to simply reduce the number of spaces available.

With parking for other types of business, it can be difficult, because you may get rid of the free parking, but your competitor will then simply advertise that they have free parking, for businesses that are in predominantly car oriented areas, this would be a death blow. Especially if they are not well serviced by transit. I know of 2 malls that have subway stations, and their parking lots are still packed from 8am to midnight, every day.

For business parking space requirements, the key is to gradually reduce the number required, for example if the floor area today requires 40 spaces, you change the bylaw so that it's only 35 spaces, or you modify the type of spaces. For example currently you need 40 spaces, plus 4 wheel chair spaces. You change the law so that you require 40 spaces, including 10% handicapped parking and 10% bicycle oriented parking. Effectively reducing the car spaces required to 32. This could mean a considerable amount of land currently dedicated to car parking becomes available for other things. Take a mall that currently requires 4,000 spaces plus 400 handicapped spaces, you have effectively made 760 spaces available for other uses. In the same law you state the handicapped spaces must be the closest to entrances, and that the bicycle spaces must be the next closest.

Within a 2km radius of my place, there are about a half dozen houses whose attached garages have been renovated into living space, either as part of the rest of the house or as a suite with a separate entrance. It's a big regulatory hassle to create a secondary rental suite in Calgary (unless you do it illegally ;) ) but it can be worthwhile.

No kidding it can be worthwhile, I think rents in cow town are just as high as here in the big smoke.... Not to say you can't rent out your garage for car parking or storage.

And buses, which take up the space of six cars and 'park' every other block, should pay six times as much for the urban space gobbled up by their stops? Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.......

roughstuff

But have the capability to carry 10 times the number of people of the average car...which is quite often only occupied by a single person.

Aaron :)

I think that as a cyclist, I should pay for parking at a rate which is comparable to the cost of providing that parking. In a similar way, a motorist should pay approximately the cost of providing his parking space. If we consider that the major cost of the parking would be related to the real-estate that the space takes up, an automobile space is typically about 8' x 20', whereas a bicycle space is about 3' x 6' - which would imply that automobile parking should cost ~ 10X the cost of bike parking. I'm not asking for anything special, I am just making the observation that we, as a society, subsidize the costs of automobiles, often in ways that we don't even think about. These subsidies hide the true cost of driving, and as a result, cause more people to use automobiles than they would use if they were not shielded from the full cost of their choices.

So many other things would be eliminated with more bike use that it would pay for itself IMO.

With the right pannier bags, and/or trailer one doesn't even need to car pool (depending on the distance) to go grocery shopping. Between my pannier bags and trailer (Yakima Big Tow) I can carry enough grocery's to last me a week or better. Of course I'm lucky enough to live within about a block or so from the grocery store that I go to all the time, which I know helps. I can (and do) walk to the store carrying my canvas bags.

I made a simpler adjustment, I just went shopping 2x or 3x a week, and was able to use regular panniers. In addition, i just bought less JUNK as well.

roughstuff

But have the capability to carry 10 times the number of people of the average car...which is quite often only occupied by a single person.

Aaron :)

Which they never do, except perhaps in our largest cities at peak periods.

roughstuff

This year I'm working at Parkmoor and Meridian in San Jose. Next year we might be at the Willow Glen Post Office. Here's your challenge. Get me from around Thornton Ave in Newark or Fremont to the Willow Glen Post Office by 6:30 AM on public transportation. No options allowed that have me bumped and late to work because I'm using a bike.

I'm not biting because the answer is obviously no way... :) the best I could do was AC transit bus 214 to Fremont bart, then switch to the VTA 181 express bus to downtown San jose, and bike from there.

Your bring out some really good points:

Sometimes the most efficient use of mass transit is to combine mass transit with bikes (ie the bike ride from down town San jose to willow glen post office will take less time than local buses), but often you can't get a bike on mass transit.

Mass transit often take much longer and doesnt cover off hours.

.

I'm not biting because the answer is obviously no way... :) the best I could do was AC transit bus 214 to Fremont bart, then switch to the VTA 181 express bus to downtown San jose, and bike from there.

Your bring out some really good points:

Sometimes the most efficient use of mass transit is to combine mass transit with bikes (ie the bike ride from down town San jose to willow glen post office will take less time than local buses), but often you can't get a bike on mass transit.

Mass transit often take much longer and doesnt cover off hours.

.

Proof mass transit takes you where it wants to go, when it wants to go there. In cases like described here, it is cheaper to give the customer a voucher he can use for a taxi or a ride with another motorist.

roughstuff

Proof mass transit takes you where it wants to go, when it wants to go there. In cases like described here, it is cheaper to give the customer a voucher he can use for a taxi or a ride with another motorist.

roughstuff

The real issue is that for transit, more customers equals more service, in much of the United States 99% of all trips are taken by personal automobile, the real exception to this rule is New York City. Often in the US as well, there is the mindset that routes must pay their own way. If 10 people per hour use a bus, that runs every 1/2 hour, then they are likely to reduce it to once per hour, and then cancel it because 8 of the people who used to use it, stopped. Now suppose they take a leap of faith and instead of reducing the frequency, which makes sense to the bean counters, they increase service to every 10 minutes, and make a big PSA about the new service. Now people go, gee, with buses so frequent, I'll take the bus for this short trip. Then all of a sudden they are running buses 5 minutes apart to deal with the traffic. If your going to use taxi's you might as well just let people drive themselves.

Now if you will excuse me, I have to go catch a bus to work .... :D

..... Now people go, gee, with buses so frequent, I'll take the bus for this short trip. Then all of a sudden they are running buses 5 minutes apart to deal with the traffic.

If your going to use taxi's you might as well just let people drive themselves.

Now if you will excuse me, I have to go catch a bus to work .... :D

Correct. It is a 'lift yourself up by your own bootstraps' policy, and it can work. To me, the best way to make buses work is to make them "FREE." That is, subsidize them (and these subsidies are justified by the monies saved in parking, traffic, yadda yadda) completely. You can collect some good revenues from businesses and retail districts in exchange for frequent stops and better service. If the bus is free, you'll get everyone...EVERYONE...hoppin on and off at their leisure whenever the bus offers a ride in the correct direction.
To collect revenues from users, rather than have fares, it would be better just to charge a flat fee for, say, 3 months of use. The buyer gets a license, much like a fishing license, that must be in plain sight at all times while on the bus. Transit and other officials can then fine who don't have the license, much as fisherman are if they don't have a license.

About the taxis: no, the taxis are better. The taxi gets multiple use all day long. A car just sits in a parking space 99% of the time.

roughstuff

Correct. It is a 'lift yourself up by your own bootstraps' policy, and it can work. To me, the best way to make buses work is to make them "FREE." That is, subsidize them (and these subsidies are justified by the monies saved in parking, traffic, yadda yadda) completely. You can collect some good revenues from businesses and retail districts in exchange for frequent stops and better service. If the bus is free, you'll get everyone...EVERYONE...hoppin on and off at their leisure whenever the bus offers a ride in the correct direction.
To collect revenues from users, rather than have fares, it would be better just to charge a flat fee for, say, 3 months of use. The buyer gets a license, much like a fishing license, that must be in plain sight at all times while on the bus. Transit and other officials can then fine who don't have the license, much as fisherman are if they don't have a license.

About the taxis: no, the taxis are better. The taxi gets multiple use all day long. A car just sits in a parking space 99% of the time.

roughstuff

Why charge anything, why not just make the transit system free. In other then small towns though, buses probably would not cut it. Transit experts, which I am not, have sets of numbers to deal with what kind of vehicle is needed for what kind of traffic flow. The diesel motor bus is the 98lb weakling in this regard, able to comfortably hold 40-60 seated passengers, and able to run with a minimum headway of roughly 10 minutes (less and they start to suffer from herding), that means they are good for about 240-320 passengers per hour. Crush loading adds about 50% to that number. The next lifter in the transit arsenal is the streetcar or LRT, the difference between these two is that streetcar tracks are typically buried at street level, an LRT typically has it's own right of way, often a reserved lane in the street. They can hold more people, typically 50% more, and LRTs can often run shorter headways like 3-5 minutes, so they are better when you have more passengers. The real heavy lifter is the often heavy rail based subway, they are usually run in underground tunnels, but each train can hold 600 people seated, double that in crush load conditions, headways can be as short as 90 seconds, with 45 trains per hour, and 600 people per train, that is 2700 people per hour.

A few terms from the above, if your kinda lost:

Herding: When you get several buses right behind each other with a big delay between buses.
Headway: The scheduled amount of time between vehicles.
Crush Load: People packed in sardine style.

If the city is supporting transit, then the easiest is to incorporate the costs into municipal taxes, as you remove a layer of costs in the collecting and policing of fares, supplying transfers, etc.

The issue with taxis is that they are running all day, so they are polluting the air all day, solves the parking problem, but with heavy use you end up challenging Beijing for worst air quality of the year award. You also then need to deal with all those taxi's on the road, so you run into road capacity issues.

I'm not biting because the answer is obviously no way... :) the best I could do was AC transit bus 214 to Fremont bart, then switch to the VTA 181 express bus to downtown San jose, and bike from there.

Your bring out some really good points:

Sometimes the most efficient use of mass transit is to combine mass transit with bikes (ie the bike ride from down town San jose to willow glen post office will take less time than local buses), but often you can't get a bike on mass transit.

Mass transit often take much longer and doesnt cover off hours.

.

I'm close right now. I can take "ACE" and then "Light Rail" to Race and Parkmoor, and walk over to Meridian. I get there less than 10 minutes from clocking in. One little problem on ACE and I miss Light Rail, or the one bus that I can "maybe" catch, and I'm late for work and subject to discipline. When we move to Willow Glen, the bus, if everything is perfect, will drop me off across the street from work at 7:35. They are currently starting at 7:30. Getting home I'm not worried. The problem with the people in the study are they have the typical "must be doing something" attitude. Sitting on ACE is the most relaxing part of my day.
Using a bike on each end would be great, but I don't want to get there a bit wet. I'm outside getting wet all day, and want to be a bit dry to keep warm. Might have to carry warm clothes.
The best rant against BART to San Jose that I've heard involved using the same amount of money to add another set of regular RR tracks between Newark and Santa Clara, and electrifying the trains. Same amount of money as BART. BART wastes waaaaay too much money with stupid decisions.

With the right pannier bags, and/or trailer one doesn't even need to car pool (depending on the distance) to go grocery shopping. Between my pannier bags and trailer (Yakima Big Tow) I can carry enough grocery's to last me a week or better. Of course I'm lucky enough to live within about a block or so from the grocery store that I go to all the time, which I know helps. I can (and do) walk to the store carrying my canvas bags.

When I lived closer to the grocery store, I was going to get one of those foldable shopping carts, put some 12" or 16" bicycle wheels on it, and extend the front legs with PVC to match the height increase of the wheels. If it's less than 1/2 mile, I wouldn't want my bike locked outside tempting the thieves. I've been wondering if people steal as many bikes in countries that use them more.

Why charge anything, why not just make the transit system free. In other then small towns though, buses probably would not cut it. Transit experts, which I am not, have sets of numbers to deal with what kind of vehicle is needed for what kind of traffic flow. The diesel motor bus is the 98lb weakling in this regard, able to comfortably hold 40-60 seated passengers, and able to run with a minimum headway of roughly 10 minutes (less and they start to suffer from herding), that means they are good for about 240-320 passengers per hour. Crush loading adds about 50% to that number. The next lifter in the transit arsenal is the streetcar or LRT, the difference between these two is that streetcar tracks are typically buried at street level, an LRT typically has it's own right of way, often a reserved lane in the street. They can hold more people, typically 50% more, and LRTs can often run shorter headways like 3-5 minutes, so they are better when you have more passengers. The real heavy lifter is the often heavy rail based subway, they are usually run in underground tunnels, but each train can hold 600 people seated, double that in crush load conditions, headways can be as short as 90 seconds, with 45 trains per hour, and 600 people per train, that is 2700 people per hour.

A few terms from the above, if your kinda lost:

Herding: When you get several buses right behind each other with a big delay between buses.
Headway: The scheduled amount of time between vehicles.
Crush Load: People packed in sardine style.

If the city is supporting transit, then the easiest is to incorporate the costs into municipal taxes, as you remove a layer of costs in the collecting and policing of fares, supplying transfers, etc.

The issue with taxis is that they are running all day, so they are polluting the air all day, solves the parking problem, but with heavy use you end up challenging Beijing for worst air quality of the year award. You also then need to deal with all those taxi's on the road, so you run into road capacity issues.

Interesting point(s)

When I was in Iowa City, IA I discovered there are 3 bus systems: Iowa City, Coralville, and the Cambus (U of I bus service) the Cambus is free on campus but requires a pass if you catch it in Coralville. All three of the services overlap in the downtown Iowa City/Campus area. IIRC the typical fare was 75 cents and transfers on system were free. The area is not overly huge I could bike from the far reaches to the far side of Iowa City in about 20 minutes. Not sure I would want to in the winter though:p

Aaron:)

The San Jose Mercury news is running a series about the issues in the bay area. some things brought up include, decreasing rider ship due to amount of time commutes take and the cost of commuting (more than buy auto in many cases) the challenges in building new capability in times of declining ridership and deficits.


Good article

What surprised me was the average person is traveling 24 miles each way in the Bay area just to go to work one way! The fares are expensive because people are traveling an incredible distance. You cannot have New York City $2.00 dollar fares since commuters are only traveling less than 12 miles one way!. BART is more like a commuter rail road than a subway and it shows in the limited or non-existant service after rush hour.

I looked at one of the larger lines (Freemon/Daly City) and it's over 45 miles long! Holy Cow! Public transportation this distance is not going to be inexpensive in any part of the country, yet it's only 6 dollars for nearly 50 miles of transport! I don't consider this unreasonable at all. A MetroNorth train ticket from Grand Central to Scarsdale one way during rush hour is $9.26 and that's only for 31 miles! Look at the cost for commuter rail lines in New Jersey and Boston and you'll see the prices quite similar to BART.

Proof mass transit takes you where it wants to go, when it wants to go there. In cases like described here, it is cheaper to give the customer a voucher he can use for a taxi or a ride with another motorist.

roughstuff

If mass transit took me where it wanted, I would not be able to go to work since the location would change each day. I would end up lost in some strange city each and every time. l-)

However, the reality is quite different and I have far more control. First, I can choose to work in a location that is supported by mass transit therefore enabling me to take advantage of the system instead of finding a job in the middle of nowwhere. A second choice would be to select a job located miles from transit leaving me *****ing each day that trains go nowwhere. However, these choices are all mine.

Bus and rail schedules enable me take advantage of the system when I want to use it. It is not a system of guess work and the schedules can be understood by an 7th grader thus giving the user the power to decide when they want to go.

If mass transit took me where it wanted, I would not be able to go to work since the location would change each day. I would end up lost in some strange city each and every time. l-)

However, the reality is quite different and I have far more control. First, I can choose to work in a location that is supported by mass transit therefore enabling me to take advantage of the system instead of finding a job in the middle of nowwhere. A second choice would be to select a job located miles from transit leaving me *****ing each day that trains go nowwhere. However, these choices are all mine.

Bus and rail schedules enable me take advantage of the system when I want to use it. It is not a system of guess work and the schedules can be understood by an 7th grader thus giving the user the power to decide when they want to go.

That only works in an area that has a substantial mass transit system.

The one in the largest town nearest to me is always looking for ways to trim back it seems. They just dropped one route completely, now if you were depending on that route to take you to work you are screwed. The neighborhood I lived in back in 1992 was on a bus route, now the nearest route is over a mile a way and several of the buses have been changed to express which means the stops are even farther away if you want to catch one. They have effectively cut that neighborhood off from mass transit. I suspect the ridership in that neighborhood was relatively low which lead to the decision to cancel/move that route.

Then you have the problem of your job up and moving. My office has moved 3 times in the past 11 years I have worked for them, the last move was 15 miles south of the first and second location. No mass transit to the current location. Fortunately I work from on the road so it did not affect me.

You can make your choices but if you are dependent on a bus service to get you to work, you had better hope it stays there. Light rail is less of a hassle because of the fixed infrastructure, but doesn't mean the trains will continue to run indefinitely.

Aaron:)

Why charge anything, why not just make the transit system free. .......


The issue with taxis is that they are running all day, so they are polluting the air all day, solves the parking problem, but with heavy use you end up challenging Beijing for worst air quality of the year award. You also then need to deal with all those taxi's on the road, so you run into road capacity issues.

Hey thanks for the additional info on measuring system performance.

The only reason I say charge something is if you DON'T, the buses become 24-7 shelters for the homeless, drunks, dropouts, and kids skipping school. I am NOT saying the costs of the licenses should be any major source of revenue.

You are still off on taxis though. I'd rather have taxis running all day than buses running all day. And taxis do kill their engines when they are in a queue. And if the vouchers could be used by any motorist instead of just mollycoddled unionized/medallionized taxis, then motorists would receive a benefit from carpooling and offering rides to others....which is something we should encourage.

roughstuff

some ideas:

Companies charge their employees a fee for parking, but reward people who walk, ride, or use mass transit. People need to remember that by no means do all companies offer their employees parking.

I drove to work today. Parked my car. 3-4 days/week I'm on my bike. If I were not so environmentally and fitness dedicated, having to pay up for parking for 5 days/week might be more incentive to "use it" and "get my money's worth."

I drove to work today. Parked my car. 3-4 days/week I'm on my bike. If I were not so environmentally and fitness dedicated, having to pay up for parking for 5 days/week might be more incentive to "use it" and "get my money's worth."

Unless you were charged per visit... say through a parking meter.

Your comment does however have meaning if you are charged say monthly.

......Then you have the problem of your job up and moving. My office has moved 3 times in the past 11 years I have worked for them, the last move was 15 miles south of the first and second location. No mass transit to the current location. Fortunately I work from on the road so it did not affect me.

You can make your choices but if you are dependent on a bus service to get you to work, you had better hope it stays there. Light rail is less of a hassle because of the fixed infrastructure, but doesn't mean the trains will continue to run indefinitely.

Aaron:)

Mobility of capital and labor is one of the most important factors in generating wealth and opportunity. This is why car usage correlates so well with wealth. Its not that people who are wealthy choose the automobile; it is that choosing the automobile leads to a great deal of consumer wealth---as anyone in China and India, soaring economies with soaring rates of automobile ownership, will attest.

roughstuff

Mobility of capital and labor is one of the most important factors in generating wealth and opportunity. This is why car usage correlates so well with wealth. Its not that people who are wealthy choose the automobile; it is that choosing the automobile leads to a great deal of consumer wealth---as anyone in China and India, soaring economies with soaring rates of automobile ownership, will attest.

roughstuff

It's not the automobile that generates wealth, to a large degree it has the opposite effect. What generates consumer wealth is that we have long distance, cheap shipping, so that it is possible to manufacture something where labour is cheap, then cheaply ship it to where it can sold at a much higher price. For example take a sweater that is made in China (the current cheap labour champ), using a synthetic material for $1.75. I can ship it to a store in the US for another $2.50 so my total cost is $4.25, the wholesale price is $25 and the retail price is $99.99 While the companies that are selling this stuff are making a ship load of money, the largest consumer, the United States is quickly turning into a nation of barely over minimum wage service providers and store clerks, racking up personal debt at an amazing rate.

China is booming and so is India not because of automobile ownership, but because they are the current cheap labour champs, as their people want more and more and thoae labour rates start to climb, expect the world to look for another cheap labour place and then they will see a long slow decline, sort of like what has happen to Japan over the last 30 years.

It's not the automobile that generates wealth, to a large degree it has the opposite effect. What generates consumer wealth is that we have long distance, cheap shipping, so that it is possible to manufacture something where labour is cheap, then cheaply ship it to where it can sold at a much higher price. ......

Nope. You said it yourself....long distance, cheap shipping. This is exactly what a transportation system based up on roadways, cars, and trucks provides. Trains and aircraft play a role as well. Look at how much China is spending on highways..they see what the interstates did for the USA, and they want the same mobility and prosperity.

Instead of paying outrageous prices for union manufactured goods (and increasingly, services...) Americans benefit by getting the best price. Everyone still has the opportunity to pay more for the quality they may want (gourmet chocolates vs. Nestle) if they wish to do so.

roughstuff

It's not the automobile that generates wealth, to a large degree it has the opposite effect. What generates consumer wealth is that we have long distance, cheap shipping, so that it is possible to manufacture something where labour is cheap, then cheaply ship it to where it can sold at a much higher price. For example take a sweater that is made in China (the current cheap labour champ), using a synthetic material for $1.75. I can ship it to a store in the US for another $2.50 so my total cost is $4.25, the wholesale price is $25 and the retail price is $99.99 While the companies that are selling this stuff are making a ship load of money, the largest consumer, the United States is quickly turning into a nation of barely over minimum wage service providers and store clerks, racking up personal debt at an amazing rate.
.

Very good point.

I might want to add the largest and most prosperous city in the nation, New York City became wealthy before the automobile due to the financial industry. However, we cannot create a "Wall Street" in every state so manufacturing becomes critical for our economic prosperity. The number of wealthy cities like London and Hon Kong were built before the automobile so it is possible. Futhermore, it can happen today as there are many examples of lightrail construction attracting billions of investment capital once these systems are built.

On a separate issue, I'm very concerned about the loss of manufacturing jobs because more highway construction will not bring them back. There was an article last week that stated road building and maintenance only brings short term construction jobs. In order to bring those jobs back, we need to restrict imports like Europe and Asia do or we will end up a nation of minimum wage workers with maxed out credit cards.

You would think with the dollar at an all time low, our exports would increase as the Europeans would buy it up with the Euro being an all time high. However, they have no intention of allowing our products destroy their manufacting jobs and tax our exports with VAT! This is not a stupid thing to do and if we don't follow their lead, we're going to need more bailouts and tax cuts to prop our bankrupt nation.

I read somewhere the Bay area like many cities in California limited the height of building construction since they did not want high rises to become the norm. So the city focused on single family homes and quickly filled all the available land and once this happened, the price of housing skyrocketed forcing people to live 25 miles or more away from the San Francisco.

To get around this problem, they constructed BART and other commuter rail lines that would take people to their far away distant homes and everything was fine until the state ran out of money and the country went bankrupt. Now all of a sudden, all those costly long distant commuter bus and rail lines became too expensive to subsidize anymore and fares have doubled while continuing to increase each year. If they had focused on building high rise housing (condos/apartments) the loss of funding for their costly transit system would not have hurt the population as it has today.

What actually happened here is pretty much the same thing that happened other places. The urban areas became cesspools, so people started moving outward to escape. It also gives your kids some grass to play on, and you can't hear the neighbors through the paper thin walls many cheaply made multi-unit buildings have.
When Jerry Brown was Mayor of Oakland, he made a big deal of moving into a multi-unit building downtown. They tried to keep it off the radar when he moved out into the safer area of town for "security reasons".
As the costs of housing in the cities went up, people bought far from work at 1/4 to 1/3 the price.
We have culturally linked owning a home to retirement in this country. There are many things that have to change before the people's desire for automobiles disappears. If public transportation is late in Europe, how do the employers react versus how an employer would react in the U.S.?

BART makes it even more troublesome to bring your bike into the train during peak hours. I've been harassed couple times by BART police for bringing my bike during morning rush hour when there were plenty of vacant seats.




H23NC,

.....
We have culturally linked owning a home to retirement in this country. There are many things that have to change before the people's desire for automobiles disappears. If public transportation is late in Europe, how do the employers react versus how an employer would react in the U.S.?

Even putting aside the absurd tax treatment of mortgage interest vs rent....I have had this argument with people for years. I have always been a renter (when I was not a freewheeling touring guy, which I will once again be startting this spring). People forget opportunity cost....at any reasonable interest rate, the cost of a 200,000 house (which is pretty cheap these days in many urban areas is thousands of dollars per year. I pay that in rent...and have no lawn to mow, sidewalk to shovel, or any other hassle. Right now I have a squirrel (i think) livin in my wall..i hear him diggin sometimes....and ain't it nice to know its the landlords responsibility to send a maintenance guy to drill him out?


roughstuff